Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[tvbcof]

you realize i can't even bother to read the content of what you write any more; it's so bad.  all i can do is think of these images of you and little iCEBLOW:

I'm pretty happy to be a little dog if the alternative would entail ripping people off by participating in a mining gear scam involving none-existent and never-to-be-existent hardware.  At least you could have been original and teamed up with Josh and Sonny at BFL.  You probably would have done much better.

[1714042866]

1714042866

[1714042866]

1714042866

[1714042866]

1714042866

[1714042866]

1714042866

[1714042866]

1714042866

[cypherdoc]

you realize i can't even bother to read the content of what you write any more; it's so bad.  all i can do is think of these images of you and little iCEBLOW:

I'm pretty happy to be a little dog if the alternative would entail ripping people off by participating in a mining gear scam involving none-existent and never-to-be-existent hardware.  At least you could have been original and teamed up with Josh and Sonny at BFL.  You probably would have done much better.

Excuse me?

Hashfast User's Thread

[sickpig]

Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

citation needed?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8737736#msg8737736

thanks for the link.

I have to main points about it, firstly I don't know how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself.

Secondly, even if we get some way to say that a particular ranks distribution means a general approval for the thread among hero/legendary users, going from this to say that "Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto" is quite a big jump, isn't it?

[cypherdoc]

yep tvbcof and iCEBLOW have always been suckers.  they can't even get their facts straight:

The sad part is that gold always has been a sucker’s bet.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-gold-is-falling-and-wont-get-up-again-2015-07-20

[NewLiberty]

yep tvbcof and iCEBLOW have always been suckers.  they can't even get their facts straight:

The sad part is that gold always has been a sucker’s bet.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-gold-is-falling-and-wont-get-up-again-2015-07-20

Gold price is more about the dollar values than much else (or whatever it is that you are trading away to get gold).
Energy is the same way, mostly.

If dollar goes up forever, gold never will.

[cypherdoc]

Yikes!

-$36 and sub $1100. That's not good.

[NewLiberty]

Yikes!

-$36 and sub $1100. That's not good.

Isn't 960ish the historically-required 50% retracement from the ATH of USD$1923?

I might buy at that price.

[iCEBREAKER]

At least one of them made out like a bandit tho...

assuming one of them actually did something wrong tho...

Well, the jury is still out on that imho. It seems calling 'shill' in this place is like yelling 'fire' at an apathy convention.  

Shill

A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.

The "covert" attribute is not in the normal definition.  Why didn't you give us a link to your dictionary?

Here the one to mine: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill

to act as a spokesperson or promoter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Wikipedia/UrbanDictionary vs Merriam Webster?  What's next, KnowYourMeme vs Britannica?   

"Shill" often connotes deceptive lack of disclosure, but only compensation to the endorser is required to meet the definition.

Connotation is not definition.

Webster's not good enough for ya?  Fine...

Try OED: "a megamillionaire who makes more money as a shill for corporate products than he does for playing basketball"

Obviously the shill in that example cannot be covert about his infamous corporate compensation.

QED you got rekt son.   

Arguing with me about English is as silly and futile as arguing with gmax about Bitcoin internals.

Well maybe not futile, as both create a teachable moments.   

[iCEBREAKER]

Thank you for the Peter Todd and Greg Maxwell citations!

Are there any more core developers with a position either positive or negative on Monero?

Not a 'position' per se but Wladimir did make a small pull request against Monero recently, indicating that he's at least looking at the code. I don't expect that to be the case for too many other coins:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/pull/329

Nice catch!

Have any other alts been graced with pull reqs from BTC core devs?  Maybe namecoin, back in the ancient times?  Oh, and obviously VIA (PTodd's chocolate factory).

[iCEBREAKER]

Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

citation needed?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8737736#msg8737736

thanks for the link.

I have to main points about it, firstly I don't know how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself.

Secondly, even if we get some way to say that a particular ranks distribution means a general approval for the thread among hero/legendary users, going from this to say that "Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto" is quite a big jump, isn't it?

Your request for citation was reasonable.

Gainsaying and nit-picking at the requested citation, upon it it being graciously provided, is not reasonable.

Nobody is stopping you from investigating "how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself."

RTFA.  Stop moving the goal posts because you don't like the fact my assertion has a reasonable basis, demonstrated with empirical data.

I'll save you the trouble.  The Hero/Legendary posts in the XMR thread are positive and supportive, while the ones in the other threads are significantly less so.

Notice the number of hero and legendary members? Darkcoin has 57 (2.23%) hero and 9 (0.35%) legendary versus Monero with 56 (3.94%) hero and 12 (0.85%) legendary. Percent wise monero has attracted more than twice legendary members and almost twice hero members.

In other words, it seems oldtimers gravitate towards monero/cryptonote and ignore darkcoin.

[smooth]

At least one of them made out like a bandit tho...

assuming one of them actually did something wrong tho...

Well, the jury is still out on that imho. It seems calling 'shill' in this place is like yelling 'fire' at an apathy convention. 

Shill

A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.

The "covert" attribute is not in the normal definition.  Why didn't you give us a link to your dictionary?

Here the one to mine: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill

to act as a spokesperson or promoter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Wikipedia/UrbanDictionary vs Merriam Webster?  What's next, KnowYourMeme vs Britannica?   

"Shill" often connotes deceptive lack of disclosure, but only compensation to the endorser is required to meet the definition.

Connotation is not definition.

Webster's not good enough for ya?  Fine...

Try OED: "a megamillionaire who makes more money as a shill for corporate products than he does for playing basketball"

Obviously the shill in that example cannot be covert about his infamous corporate compensation.

QED you got rekt son.   

Arguing with me about English is as silly and futile as arguing with gmax about Bitcoin internals.

Well maybe not futile, as both create a teachable moments.   

The fact there is an entire article on wikipedia that differs from the dictionary definition tells us the word has acquired a secondary meaning within the context of online discourse. Expect to see that included as dictionaries are revised.

[tabnloz]

yep tvbcof and iCEBLOW have always been suckers.  they can't even get their facts straight:

The sad part is that gold always has been a sucker’s bet.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-gold-is-falling-and-wont-get-up-again-2015-07-20

Gold price is more about the dollar values than much else (or whatever it is that you are trading away to get gold).
Energy is the same way, mostly.

If dollar goes up forever, gold never will.

I agree. If rates don't get raised in Sept/Oct, it should be a bottom.

[iCEBREAKER]

At least one of them made out like a bandit tho...

assuming one of them actually did something wrong tho...

Well, the jury is still out on that imho. It seems calling 'shill' in this place is like yelling 'fire' at an apathy convention.  

Shill

A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.

The "covert" attribute is not in the normal definition.  Why didn't you give us a link to your dictionary?

Here the one to mine: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill

to act as a spokesperson or promoter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Wikipedia/UrbanDictionary vs Merriam Webster?  What's next, KnowYourMeme vs Britannica?   

"Shill" often connotes deceptive lack of disclosure, but only compensation to the endorser is required to meet the definition.

Connotation is not definition.

Webster's not good enough for ya?  Fine...

Try OED: "a megamillionaire who makes more money as a shill for corporate products than he does for playing basketball"

Obviously the shill in that example cannot be covert about his infamous corporate compensation.

QED you got rekt son.   

Arguing with me about English is as silly and futile as arguing with gmax about Bitcoin internals.

Well maybe not futile, as both create a teachable moments.   

The fact there is an entire article on wikipedia that differs from the dictionary definition tells us the word has acquired as secondary meaning within the context of online discourse. Expect to see that included as dictionaries are revised.

Wow, an "entire" article?  Not just a half or otherwise partial article?  I'm impressed!

Putting in a superfluous puff word like "entire" really makes you sound conclusive, convincing, and not desperate at all.   

If you care to check OED and Webster, you'll find they subsume your "entire" Wiki entry by including the deceit-connotated definition along with the broader compensation-only one.

Yes, sometimes connotation does eventually become definition.  But not always exclusively, and not today.   

And the linguistic drift often goes the other direction.  As in this case, where your fact-free armchair etymology is backwards.  The original definition did necessarily involve deceit, but time passed and a radial definition only requiring compensation replaced the classical.  The dwindling of carnivals and new age of explicitly compensated celebrity endorsements (Bill Cosby the Jello pudding shill, etc.) played some role in modern usage, as reflected in OED's example.

QED you got rekt son.  I hope you are enjoying this teachable moment.

[cypherdoc]

WTH is wrong with you iCEBLow? You must have a multiple personality disorder because in this thread you you call me a shill while pretending to be an innocent bystander of HF but in the original HF thread you continue to be the most hated HF shill of all and continue to troll everyone there. Everyone needs to go to this link and read just a few pages forward and back to see what I mean:

Quick, sell all your Bitcoin because I'm associated with it!

 

Admit it that you are jealous on cypherdoc for siphoning more coins than you.

I think most of the shady crappy people here are jealous of cyperdoc, deep down, all they wanted was more money anyways...

So true!  The only reason to buy an ASIC is because you want leveraged exposure to the price of BTC.

These spoiled whining brats are shifting undue blame onto HF because

1) they risked more than they could afford to lose
2) they believed in the myth of windfall "refunds" paid from "secret escrow" accounts
3) they can't handle the fact the price of BTC went down from the $1200 ATH instead of up, and their desired leverage backfired

It's like they've never before heard of a high-tech start-up's ambitious first product having birthing pains.  What green-horned noobs!

They had their chance to prove in court HF was a scam.  They failed, and so tried changing the venue to some sort of moralistic 20/20 hindsight-based online tribunal.  They can't even get their facts correct, and repeat lies about how HF "never shipped BJ upgrade kits" nor any Sierras.

Now they want to steal cypher's coins.  What a bunch of losers.   

[OROBTC]

...

Past few days I've seen a lot of gold collapsing and Bitcoin going nowhere (which in one sense is good, more Au for the BTC when the time comes).

Only problem for me is that my wife just forbade me to buy any more gold.  Bummer!  But a promise is a promise.

[smooth]

as reflected in OED example.

WTF, iCE?

a) A decoy or accomplice, esp. one posing as an enthusiastic or successful customer to encourage other buyers, gamblers, etc.

b) One who poses as a disinterested advocate of another but is actually of the latter's party; a mouthpiece, a stooge.

a person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest:

(That is the 2nd definition given. The first is ambiguous due to it being unclear how the word "acts" is being used, but could also reasonably be interpreted to include deception.)

i.e. deception.

[NewLiberty]

At least one of them made out like a bandit tho...

assuming one of them actually did something wrong tho...

Well, the jury is still out on that imho. It seems calling 'shill' in this place is like yelling 'fire' at an apathy convention.  

Shill

A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.

The "covert" attribute is not in the normal definition.  Why didn't you give us a link to your dictionary?

Here the one to mine: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill

to act as a spokesperson or promoter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Wikipedia/UrbanDictionary vs Merriam Webster?  What's next, KnowYourMeme vs Britannica?   

"Shill" often connotes deceptive lack of disclosure, but only compensation to the endorser is required to meet the definition.

Connotation is not definition.

Webster's not good enough for ya?  Fine...

Try OED: "a megamillionaire who makes more money as a shill for corporate products than he does for playing basketball"

Obviously the shill in that example cannot be covert about his infamous corporate compensation.

QED you got rekt son.   

Arguing with me about English is as silly and futile as arguing with gmax about Bitcoin internals.

Well maybe not futile, as both create a teachable moments.   

You ought not get entrenched on this one.  Its a living language, and I'd hazard a guess that it would be a minority of people that would associate "shill" with an honest spokesperson.   You may wish to maintain that shills are honest, but none of these do:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/shill

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-shill.html

http://dictionary.babylon.com/shill/

decoy, one who poses as a customer in order to lure other customers (in gambling houses, games of chance, etc.)

You may have found the only modern dictionary brief enough to not include such a definition.

[majamalu]

You ought not get entrenched on this one.  Its a living language, and I'd hazard a guess that it would be a minority of people that would associate "shill" with an honest spokesperson.   You may wish to maintain that shills are honest, but none of these do:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/shill

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-shill.html

http://dictionary.babylon.com/shill/

decoy, one who poses as a customer in order to lure other customers (in gambling houses, games of chance, etc.)

You may have found the only modern dictionary brief enough to not include such a definition.

How dare you challenge our beloved leader Kim Jong-iCE?

The only correct definition is the one he prefers. The same applies to block size.

[iCEBREAKER]

Shill

A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.

The "covert" attribute is not in the normal definition.  Why didn't you give us a link to your dictionary?

Here the one to mine: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill

to act as a spokesperson or promoter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Wikipedia/UrbanDictionary vs Merriam Webster?  What's next, KnowYourMeme vs Britannica?   

"Shill" often connotes deceptive lack of disclosure, but only compensation to the endorser is required to meet the definition.

Connotation is not definition.

Webster's not good enough for ya?  Fine...

Try OED: "a megamillionaire who makes more money as a shill for corporate products than he does for playing basketball"

Obviously the shill in that example cannot be covert about his infamous corporate compensation.

QED you got rekt son.   

Arguing with me about English is as silly and futile as arguing with gmax about Bitcoin internals.

Well maybe not futile, as both create a teachable moments.   

You ought not get entrenched on this one.  Its a living language, and I'd hazard a guess that it would be a minority of people that would associate "shill" with an honest spokesperson.   You may wish to maintain that shills are honest, but none of these do:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/shill

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-shill.html

http://dictionary.babylon.com/shill/

decoy, one who poses as a customer in order to lure other customers (in gambling houses, games of chance, etc.)

You may have found the only modern dictionary brief enough to not include such a definition.

I will get entrenched on this one.  Thanks for your concern, but I am in the right here and don't need you to lecture me on 'living languages.'

You missed my point here:

If you care to check OED and Webster, you'll find they subsume your "entire" Wiki entry by including the deceit-connotated definition along with the broader compensation-only one.

The evolution of "shill" etymology is going in the directing of deprecating the old 'deceitful carny' connotation, in favor of the more modern 'paid spokesperson' although preserving the negative aspect by substituting a 'sell-out' implication for the 'fraud' of yore.

[solex]

Gavin is already on the case with negating excessively cpu-intensive "bloat tx" which are a concern.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009494.html

Mitigate a potential CPU exhaustion denial-of-service attack by limiting
the maximum size of a transaction included in a block.

==Motivation==

Sergio Demian Lerner reported that a maliciously constructed block could
take several minutes to validate, due to the way signature hashes are
computed for OP_CHECKSIG/OP_CHECKMULTISIG ([[
https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=140078|CVE-2013-2292]]).
Each signature validation can require hashing most of the transaction's
bytes, resulting in O(s*b) scaling (where n is the number of signature
operations and m is the number of bytes in the transaction, excluding
signatures). If there are no limits on n or m the result is O(n^2) scaling.

This potential attack was mitigated by changing the default relay and
mining policies so transactions larger than 100,000 bytes were not
relayed across the network or included in blocks. However, a miner
not following the default policy could choose to include a
transaction that filled the entire one-megaybte block and took
a long time to validate.